STUDY DESIGN: Two reviewers rated the 112 clinical articles, from January through June 2003, published in Spine using a level-of-evidence grading system. The ratings were compared to previously published ratings of 2 orthopedic journals with similar impact factors. OBJECTIVE: To compare Spine to other orthopedic journals using a level-of-evidence rating system. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A previous study evaluating the levels of evidence in 9 orthopedic journals found a correlation between higher-level studies and journal impact factor. Spine was not included in the analysis. METHODS: Studies were designated therapeutic, prognostic, diagnostic, or economic, and their evidence rated as level I, II, III, or IV. Reviewers were blinded to the other's ratings. RESULTS: Ratings were as follows: 43.8% of the Spine articles were therapeutic, 37.5% prognostic, 17.9% diagnostic, and 0.9% economic. Of studies, 16.1% were level I, 22.3% level II, 8.0% level III, and 53.6% level IV. Kappa values for interobserver reliability showed good correlation between reviewers. There was no significant difference among Spine and 2 leading orthopedic journals in their likelihood of publishing level I or II studies. CONCLUSION: Spine publishes clinical studies with levels of evidence comparable to the 2 orthopedic journals with similar impact factors.
STUDY DESIGN: Two reviewers rated the 112 clinical articles, from January through June 2003, published in Spine using a level-of-evidence grading system. The ratings were compared to previously published ratings of 2 orthopedic journals with similar impact factors. OBJECTIVE: To compare Spine to other orthopedic journals using a level-of-evidence rating system. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A previous study evaluating the levels of evidence in 9 orthopedic journals found a correlation between higher-level studies and journal impact factor. Spine was not included in the analysis. METHODS: Studies were designated therapeutic, prognostic, diagnostic, or economic, and their evidence rated as level I, II, III, or IV. Reviewers were blinded to the other's ratings. RESULTS: Ratings were as follows: 43.8% of the Spine articles were therapeutic, 37.5% prognostic, 17.9% diagnostic, and 0.9% economic. Of studies, 16.1% were level I, 22.3% level II, 8.0% level III, and 53.6% level IV. Kappa values for interobserver reliability showed good correlation between reviewers. There was no significant difference among Spine and 2 leading orthopedic journals in their likelihood of publishing level I or II studies. CONCLUSION: Spine publishes clinical studies with levels of evidence comparable to the 2 orthopedic journals with similar impact factors.
Authors: Brian P Cunningham; Samuel Harmsen; Chris Kweon; Jason Patterson; Robert Waldrop; Alex McLaren; Ryan McLemore Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2013-07-12 Impact factor: 4.176